Why must people followblind?

People follow blind because of faith. Faith is believing in something that you cannot fully comprehend but yet believe in it anyway.

Sometimes I envy people with so much faith. For them the search is over, this is it, this is what I must do. I am still searching for something I do not know what. They have peace of mind, I don't. They might be wrong but at least they still have that peace of mind.

There are times when something of a religious practice turns out to be beneficial after all. Take for example your circumcision tirade. Fist of all chances are if you are circumcised at birth or around that time you do not even remember it happening. It has been proven medically to be hygienic and lowers the risk of cervical cancer among women whoose sexual partners are circumcised.

Another example would be the laws that prevents relatives up to cousins not being allowed to marry each other. For a long period of time this Jewish and Christian beliefs were not followed. Many times cousins marries one anothjer especially in the old Chinese communities to preserve the wealth within the family. Genetics later proved that this causes abnormalities.

mmmmm
I am searching for the same thing as you. unfortunately i'm unable to find that corner of faith by applying logic to any religion or belief. if the all mighty love, power and light came to this planet for are salvation, he would not have a label. If he was to come and only save one religion, it wouldn't make him much of a god, would it? If that is the case,then i would want nothing to do with him (him used, for want of a better word.) Then you have the people who kill for their religion, thats wrong, end of story. To believe in something as hypocritical as any religion is just stupid.

As for circumcision, if god made us in his own like, why put the things there in the first place, or are those bits of skin just waste parts left when we where cut from he mould, like a bit of plastic. I would love to find god but he keeps on eluding me. I wish for a day when we can all be one and get on with our lives, with peace in or souls. Until we stop dividing ourselves,there can be no salvation.

But Buddhism is exactly the opposite of what you said!

* Buddhists dont worship Buddha or Bodhisattvas or anything
* Buddhists believe in experience, and Buddha said "Do not believe in things just because I said so."
* There is no wars in the name of Buddhism in history!

Here I quote again, which I had in another post,

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein


To me, Buddhism is more of a way of life for human beings.

Buddhists believe that human pain is unavoidable, but human suffering is optional.

Buddhists, as long as they practice the Dharma (refers to teachings by Buddha), will become a happier man, more liberated, not so stuck to the 'three poisons' - "Greed, Hatred, and Ignorance" and ultimately achieves Nirvana. In my experience, my life is definately much better with Buddhism.

Buddhism is a good example of a religion that emphasizes peace, such that the famous Indian King Asoka, originally a Hindu, stopped his wars after realising the pain he caused and became a Buddhist. Also, after Buddhism entered Tibet, the once barbaric people stopped their violence.

There is a special letter from Dalai Lama, peace Nobel winner, to President Bush after 911. Dalai Lama's Letter

p.s. I have many Christian and Muslim friends (i live in a multi racial country), Taoism, etc, and dont seem violent to me, neither do religious groups here practice offensive methods just to prove a point in their teachings. I have gained knowledge about their religions from then in fact and I find them interesting. If Singaporeans can be so religious tolerating, I believe anyone else in the world can, too. It all depends on how the person practices his religion...

Unitarian / Universalists don't have the answers either... but we do enjoy asking the questions.

Because they've been shown the light?

You are barking up the wrong tree. Faith and reason are a contradiction in terms. When a person has faith, there is an abrogation of reason and logic.

As for the paean to buddhism, i've never been very impressed with a group of self-satisfied monastics mouthing egocentric platitudes in the most densely populated countries on earth, while millions around them starve or are malnourished. The buddhists do no harm, perhaps--they do precious little good either. I've never met a religion i didn't despise.

Perhaps you should give a better explanation of "self-satisfied monastics", which I do not quite understand. But anyway.. from what I know, Buddhists learn to be compassionnate to every sentient beings in the world, not even limited to mankind itself (compassionate to animals), to help others in whatever way they can.

You said that millions around them starve or are malnourished, but it doesn't have to do with Buddhism. Did Buddhism teach leaders to make people starve and suffer? Rise and declination of nations very often doesn't totally depend on religions but rather it depends more on leadership or external factors like attacks from other countries or challenges etc. And there are a few good examples of countries where Buddhists aren't poor - Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, etc etc.

About "egocentric platitudes", I'm not very good in English, but anyway... Buddhism teaches Buddhists to remove ego, a false perception of "self", and that greatly reduces human suffering (not to be mistaken by human pain).

So my point is well... Human pain is reduced by the government and charities and by us who donate, while human suffering is reduced by Buddhism Buddhism is a way of life for buddhists who practice them, how can you say it does little good?

Oh my achin' ass . . . yeah, it reduces the suffering of the smug bastard who's contemplating his navel . . . the "buddhism" of Japan is not to be compared to what obtains in the subcontinent, and the same goes for other nations you've mentioned--why you put Australia in such a list is completely beyond me, that is an absurdity--but only more absurd than the others, none of which could be described as "buddhist nations," by such a loose criterion as simply having some buddhists in their populations, they could all equally well be described as christian. The prosperity you mention in all of those nations arises from social and economic factors which have nothing to do with buddhism.

My remarks about starvation and malnourishment have very much to do indeed with buddhism. While the buddhist bask in their self-congratulatory contentment, they do nothing to amerliorate the horrible living conditions of those around them. They are content to tout their enlightenment, and refer to the very real day-to-day problems of the populations in which they find themselves as transitory manifestations of a great cycle--the platitudes of the self-satisfied who haven't got ****-all interest in making a meaningful difference in the lives of others. Referring to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" in the form of national leadership or predatory neighbors when referring specifically to the Indian subcontinent to explain the appalling living conditions far too many endure is a red herring. As has always been the case in history in nations with some who enjoy affluence, while most live in poverty, or even starve, social and political elitism creates and maintains the system. Buddhists are content to wander off to seek enlightenment, and to hell with starving mothers and their children. Buddhism is one of the biggest cop-out religions ever conceived.

Firstly I would like to point out for your information that Buddhism has long died out in India after its spreaded to neighbouring countries like China and South-east Asia

Who said buddhists do nothing to improve living conditions? If someone has the ability to do so, surely out of compassion which Buddha has taught, one will do their best to improve it. The Theravada Buddhism is the "small vehicle" religion in which the highest level one can attain is Arhat. Theravada is more of self-attaining and its focus is less on other sentient beings. However, the way to supreme enlightenement or Buddhahood is by the Bodhisattva's way (large vehicle), which you should visit this website for an explanation. There are many buddhist charaties here in Singapore building free clinics, free hospitals, charaties for the sick etc.

http://kyky.essortment.com/whatisbodhisat_rfld.htm

One can be liberated when one is in pain or starving - although one may not attain Nirvana in this life, Buddhism is put into great use when a person is in pain, mental, or physical suffering like starving, sickness, etc.

Oh and I'm putting Australia to the list not because its the most popular religion there, but because its the fastest growing religion right now.

Yes - precisely, a nation's wellfare is depended on Social and Economic welfare. I do not understand why you put buddhism into the picture. Does attaining Nirvana cause a decline of social and economic welfare? Does Buddhism cause Social and Economic decline? Do the buddhists seeking enlightment dismiss the pain and hunger as a great cycle because they can't be bothered? No, because they can do little about it themselves.

Or, at any event, don't make a sufficient effort to do anything about it. That buddhism is marginalized in the subcontinent in the 21st century is a measure of its irrelevance. You've spoken of prosperity. It's the sort of credo which appeals to the prosperous, and not one which is going to have any lasting appeal to the people of a country in which there is a daily struggle for life. I equally despise other organized religion, but i will give to some of them credit for trying to make a real difference in the lives of the impoverished.

The complacency of buddhism in the face of the difficulty of life for so many millions, billions perhaps, makes it just as dispicable a creed to my mind as any other is. I'm not saying its worse than other religions, just that its no better. Its just another spiritualistic shell game--and with its fairy tale stories of Siddhartha's marvelous feats, or Jetsun Milarepa casting out demons, any of that claptrap, its the same old, tired nonsense packaged anew, and foisted onto the credulous.

I didn't think that Buddhists prosletyzed...

That might be one saving grace, if true . . .

American Buddhists often prosletyze. The ones chanting "Nam Myo Ho Rin Gay kyo".

Yeah, Christians cum Buddhists tend to ramble on about it, that's for sure, but I don't think it was on the original agenda.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans9.htm

If Buddhism is so good why are some Buddhist countries poor?

"If by poor you mean economically poor, then it is true that some Buddhist countries are poor. But if by poor you mean a poor quality of life, then perhaps some Buddhist countries are quite rich. America, for example, is an economically rich and powerful country but the crime rate is one of the highest in the world, millions of old people are neglected by their children and die of loneliness in old people's homes, domestic violence and child abuse are major problems. One in three marriages end in divorce, pornography is easily available. Rich in terms of money but perhaps poor in terms of the quality of life. Now if you look at some traditional Buddhist countries you find a very different situation. Parents are honoured and respected by their children, the crime rates are relatively low, divorce and suicide are rare and traditional values like gentleness, generosity, hospitality to strangers, tolerance and respect for others are still strong. Economically backward, but perhaps a higher quality of life than a country like America. But even if we judge Buddhist countries in terms of economics alone, one of the wealthiest and most economically dynamic countries in the world today is Japan where 93% of the population call themselves Buddhist. "

Buddhism is marginalized in the subcontinent in the 21st Century? I would say Buddhism is getting popular in many countries outside Asia. U.S has got more than a ten fold increase in Buddhists over the last 40 years and its rapidly gaining speed. It now represents about 1.6% of the U.S population, and I believe the whole buddhist community in the U.S will continue to grow.

You said that it is irrelevant, but Buddhism is very popular among the poors back in Buddha's time. Well the christians may have more charities and "makes a real difference" in lives of the impoverished, but I believe that the reason is because the number of Christians is more than the number of Buddhists in the world, and the number of rich Buddhists who have the ability to make a difference is also probably smaller. Otherwise, I don't see that Buddhists has not done enough for the impoverished. There are charities and stuff like that, but on a smaller scale due to number of Buddhists who are able to help, so it isn't very well known around the world. Well, the life stories don't seem like fairy tales to me (which one are you exactly refering to?). And what do you mean by Siddhartha's marvelous feat? Buddhist stories are real records of happenings in Buddha's time by Ananda, and usually wont sound anything like fairy tales.

Whatever floats your boat, Boss . . . you believe in as many turtles, all the way down, as suits you . . . i will continue to despise all forms of organized religion . . . have a nice life . . .

I have to agree with Setanta. Sitting on a mat, saying everything three times, ain't goanna save the world. But i must say their teachings have been the most convincing, whilst looking for answers and whilst 'convincing' is not perfect, the whole idea has less contradictions in it's totality, than the bible has on the first page. But trying to confuse people so that they look to it's leaders in awe, makes it look as if we are going down the same old path. People like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and all the other self proclaimed messengers of god, would all be locked up today for being nutters. If you talk to God, it is faith. If God talks to you it's schizophrenia.

I still have not thrown out the idea that god is a fourteen year old on a computer,playing the Sims and until proof comes my way, i will carry on looking. I promise if God talks to me in the mean time, i'll have myself sectioned.

Actually, Buddha should not be seen as a god or God. I see him as a great teacher. Yes I bow to his images, but worshipping and respect are two different things. You'll know this very well if you're in Singapore, worshippers are those who goes to the temples.. pray to the statues in a way which looks like begging someone, and asking for favours. But in Buddhism we bow to images of Buddha with thoughts of thanks and it reminds us of Buddha's teachings. Its simple to be a Buddhist, take refuge, practice his teachings which will make a life better, no worshipping stuff.

Nope, Buddha did not claim to be a messenger of God, neither did Buddha believe in God. There was a recorded story that a king of one of the heavens Brahma from a heaven visited Buddha to listen to his teachings, and Buddha asked Brahma "Since you claimed to be the knower of all, creator of all, etc, Did you create pain and suffering?" and many such questions which Brahma was unable to answer himself, and Buddha came to a conclusion that "If the world was created by a God, then that God must be evil", and so Buddha did not believe in God. But of course that Brahma doesn't need to refer to Christian's God, and probably Christians should be able to answer at least the first question asked by Buddha after 2500 years passed . You said "trying to confused people so that they look to it's leader in awe".. Well, which part in Buddhism are Buddhists confused? Or if you are really confused any anything, you can e-mail me

Hm I don't really play Sims. I prefer FPS games. I'm looking forward to Half-Life 2 :wink: